General election 2017

After Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, I wondered if the Tories will ever get elected again.  Twenty years later I am asking the same question to myself but this time it is whether Labour will get back in.  I think we are seeing the death of the Labour party in front of our very eyes, which is sad because weak oppositions lead to bad governments.

Barbara Ntumy and Jack Buckby

In the past week, there was a notorious Channel 4 News debate featuring right wing activist Jack Buckby and Momentum member,Farage confronter and student activist Barbara Ntumy.  It was notorious because Buckby pulled out a sheet of paper and asked Ntumy whether she would fill it in and accept refugees into her home.  He then followed up with the comment 'I hope you don't get raped' which made him come out looking rather bad even though he had a reasoned argument in that piece.  To her credit Ntumy did say that she accept refugees into her home if she had the means.

During the discussion, Ntumy said that Buckby objected to her existence several times and which he denied strenuosly.  What Buckby objected to were those who were a drain on society which in closer analysis is actually a reasonable point.  He also said he hated Ntumy's politics rather than Ntumy personally, in particular her faux outrage when IS are committing atrocities. Ntumy then brings up the British colonialism that happened in her birth country - Ghana.  Its strange Arab colonialism is ignored and black on black colonialism is also ignored.  It is clear that Buckby cannot be defined as a racist in this instance.  Instead he is making very reasonable points about immigration and also cultural differences between the hosts and newcomers.  Time and again the left has failed to deal with this and any discussion of this is set within narrow limits lest one is accused of being a racist.

On a later Youtube video, Ntumy supports the idea of 'no platforming' whereby those whose views are not acceptable to Guardian readers are not allowed to speak in public. In the age of social media, the no platform is being rendered obsolete.

Trump triumph and another fail for the left

If you wondered why it has been such a bad year politically for the left, check out this video blog from a leftwing blogger Jonathan Pie.

Guy Debord's Cat on Mr Finegold - a conclusion

If you remember my take on Guy Debord's Cat post about the laughable non-existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party and the left generally, I give you Mr Debord's final comment.

As usually the case with most leftists he failed to answer my points and accused me of smearing him.  What's really interesting is that he denies that I was ever in the SWP.  So he obviously knows me better than I do myself.

Left wing anti-semitism reloaded.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

EU referendum vote - the real winners and losers

The winners

The British public
Whether you voted leave or remain, this is a victory for the people. In recent years, the EU has proved to be a failed project and governance has returned to governments that are voted in by the people.

Boris Johnson
Bojo was a Europhile who in the late stages switched to leave.  Yes, he was opportunistic and yes he made a gamble. But it was a correct gamble despite what all the polls were saying right up to the vote.  Had there been a remain victory he would be finished right now.

Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP
Despite supporting remain, the Sturgeon and the SNP have got the result it wanted, it now has the momentum and moral backing for a second independence referendum thanks to a 60/40 vote for remain.  And it is likely to win such a referendum.

Ruth Davidson
The Scottish Tory leader was the only Remainer Tory who came out of the referendum campaign with any credit.  She was an unknown who was wheeled out in the last BBC EU debate at Wembley alongside her fellow 'B' team Sadiq Khan and Frances O'Grady then came out of it as a political big hitter.

The losers

David Cameron
He gambled and lost, nothing more needs to be said.

The europhiles within the conservative party
Cameron went for the referendum in order to prevent more eurosceptic Tory MPs from defecting to UKIP, now the europhiles are isolated.  I would not be surprised if the europhiles form a breakaway party or even defect to the Lib Dems.

Jeremy Corbyn
For a man who has been a long time critic of the EU from a left point of view, this has been a major misjudgement.  If he had stuck with his principles and led the leave campaign his standing would have been greatly enhanced and given Labour a great electoral boost.  Instead now his future is uncertain.

The Labour party and the left in general
From the results it was the Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands that carried Leave vote.  It was working class voters of all colours who basically won it for leave, the very same voters whom the remainers, especially from the left, labelled as racists, xenophobes etc.  The left failed to account for the working class grievances which included immigration.  The likes of Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Charlotte Church sneering at the leave vote only enhanced this gulf.  Labour is in danger of being a party of inner London, Manchester and Liverpool and a party for student radicals.  Unless this is resolved I can see a mass exodus of its vote to UKIP at the next election.

Jackie Walker suspension and reinstatement

After a short break its back to politcs, this time its the recent re-instatement of leading Momentum campaigner Jackie Walker back into the Labour party.  She was suspended for comments she made on social media about the role of Jews and the African slave trade.  Walker is of Black African and Jewish descent.In the remark below, Walker calls the African slave trade the "African holocaust", thereby linking its severity with the Nazi Holocaust.

“As I’m sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews.”

Couple of things

• Although shocking, the African slave trade was not the destruction of a race of people, which was the aim of the Nazi holocaust.
• Even though she does not mention it, she is likely to be referring to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. White Europeans did not have a monopoly on the slave trade, there has been an Arab slave trade in East Africa and it still exists today.  This is even mentioned in some strategy games.
• In the Nazi holocaust it was non-Jews killing Jews but in the African slave trade it was black Africans who captured and sold their fellow black Africans to both the Arabs and the Europeans.  Yep, you heard it, black Africans are even more culpable in slavery than both the Europeans and Arabs put together.  How did it happen? The black slaves would be prisoners of war in tribal battles.  According to anthropologists different tribes would trade slaves amongst themselves.  When the Arabs and later the Europeans arrived, this was ramped up.  

Walker then describes Jews as "chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade". And as a follow up asks, ‘what do you think the Jews should do about their contribution to the African Holocaust? What debt do they owe?’. My reply is nothing.  If one group is uniquely held responsible for its very small role then that surely is racist, which is ironic coming from an anti-racism campaigner.  Especially a Jewish one.

Me thinks this woman has self-hate issues and is using her blackness to act them out.  This is prevalent in a small part of the Jewish community especially amongst 'antizionist Jews' who are using the 'plight' of the Palestinians to act out their self hate.

Paul Mason doing mental cartwheels on BBC Question Time this week

Paul Mason is a left wing economist who was economics editor for Channel 4 news, and someone on the left I have alot of time for, but maybe not for much longer after this item.  Like some on the left he admits that the EU is undemocratic and unworkable but despite this he says he is unlikely to vote Brexit as it would hand power to "crazed, rightwing Conservatives" in the UK.  Paul, old bean, these "crazed, rightwing Conservatives" were actually elected by the people last year and can be voted out in a few years time, which is more than can be said for the EU commission.

Naz Shah

I just found this little upload from Youtube

Its about that nasty, smelly, anti-semitic Labour MP Naz Shah, who has resigned from being a parlimentary aide to shadow chancellor John McDonnell. Here Labour front bencher Lisa Nandy MP is taken to task for it, with Liam Fox MP adding a few titbits. A couple of telling comments.

1. Nandy says that the majority of Labour members are not antisemitic.  That's ok then, so it means a minority are.  So when will Labour do something about them?
2. Naz Shah said she did not agree with some of the racist images and posts that she shared.  So why did she share them then? She's either too thick or thinks the public is too thick.
3. Liam Fox makes a very telling point, its not only the images and posts that you share but also the underlying sentiment behind it.  This suggests that Shah strongly believed in antisemitism. 

So another Labour member has been rumbled for anti-semitism, in other news, scientists discover that doing push ups is good for your biceps.

More left stupidity post Brussels

Every now and again I dip into the left wing blog, the Canary, to find out what the other side thinks. So after the Brussels atrocity I saw this rather terrible but typical article.  Here are some highlights from it

"As terrorist attacks hit Brussels on 22 March, anti-Muslim propaganda began to appear online." That's absolutely true but did the author think that without these terror attacks there would be none of this islamophobia?

"The general gist of the arguments was that: Muslims want to kill and subjugate them; ". Actually this is in someways true, there are passages in Koran which extols killing non-believers, in particular,

"Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... ".

So in a way these views have some factual backing and what of the hard evidence?  Once Islam was established, through the Ummayad dynasty it went on a conquering spree, all the way up to the Loire Valley in France, where they were stopped (battle of Tours).  Even the Total War and Age of Empires strategy games depict this.  So in a sense what this article is accusing the right of is actually correct.

And what of the claim that Islam seeks to conquer the west, well this article mentions someone who is not backwards going forwards in implementing this modern day conquest.  I can also point to this clip of radical muslim protesters showing their honesty.

The article mentions the role Saudi funded Wahabism in all this -

"This is not to say that all Wahhabis are terrorists. However, combined with other factors (like marginalisation, for example) Wahhabi indoctrination can be particularly dangerous."

However it abrogates this by mentioning "marginalisation".  It is the terrorists who have marginalized themselves from the rest of society.

"To truly stop terrorism, our governments must first deal with Saudi Arabia’s support for Wahhabi hate preaching around the world. Then, they must work to end the war, exploitation and injustice around the world in which our governments and their allies have all too often played a role."

The article ends with the above paragraph, and mentions that "war, exploitation and injustice" are factors, however what it means by injustice from the muslim point of view is that some in the west are standing up to islamofascism and sharia law.

Brussels attacks

Towards the end of my working day, I heard about the awful events that unfolded in Brussels, which started with the bombing at Brussels airport and later at Maelbeek station.  As I write this there are 34 confirmed deaths and countless injuries.  When events like this happen on instantly thinks of terrorism and Islamic terrorism in particular.  Commentators are already linking this with the recent arrest by Belgian police of Paris mastermind, Salah Abdeslam, and it is seen as IS's response to the arrest.

As if by magic, the Guardian produces a terrible opinion editorial on the tragedy, this time written by Simon Jenkins, whom I don't associate with the usual useful idiot left. A couple of his points come to attention

"There is no way any community can make itself immune to terror attacks. Since they are random, no protection can defend that community from them. No amount of police work or surveillance, no deployment of armies or navies, let alone of missiles or nuclear weapons, can guard against them. Intelligence and surveillance can go so far, but the bombers and killers will get through any net."

Of course, ultimately no amount of surveillance can prevent this but one way to do this would be properly control your borders and regulate who can come in.  Again this is all down to border control and how you react to people of different cultures in your community.  If you let fear of racism inhibit your policing then this is the result.

"What is not stupid is seeking to alleviate, or not aggravate, the rage that gives rise to acts of terror, and then to diminish the potency of the incident itself. The first requires a wiser foreign policy than most western nations have shown towards the Muslim world over the past decade. The second is even harder to achieve. It demands patience and restraint in publicising terrorist incidents and in responding to them."

Again, like all those on the left, Jenkins blames the attack on western foreign policy, even though Belgium has little to do with the war on terror.  By blaming western foreign policy Jenkins is using the racism of low expectations.  That is muslims have no moral agency, instead they are influenced completely by events in foreign lands.  People become terrorists because they have made a moral decision to become one, foreign policy or not.

"The blanket media coverage assured for any act of violence is reckless."

The media coverage is not reckless, it is merely reflecting the seriousness of the event.  Unfortunately it appears the left is stuck in its own religious blind faith.
 

Racism of low expectations

When I was in my final year of my Media and Sociology degree course at what is now Leeds Trinity University, I did a module on contemporary media representation.  It was part debating chamber and part cultural Marxist propaganda.  At the time one of the most contentious issues was Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. I remember that time really well and the tutor (Dr John Short, rest  in peace) was putting forward the idea that the book should not be published because Muslims in Bradford would and did protest violently against it.  Hence the 'rightwing' media would portray the protesting muslims as knuckle dragging fascists, who called for the violent death of Rushdie.  The materials we were given all put the muslim side of the story and the tutor gave many reasons why it should not be published.

Even back then I had my doubts about this module and indeed, left ideology as a whole.  First, the media only portrays what is actually happening.  If the muslim protesters, which included the future head of the muslim council of Britain Iqbal Sacranie, did not incite Rushdie's murder then the media would not portray them as savages.

The course's tutors believed that the publishers should have self-censored because of the way muslims would react and the media would portray muslims badly and hence lead them to be stereotyped by society as a whole.  However, not once did the tutors mention that it was up to the protesters and muslims in general on how they should behave.  It is a fact that incitement to violence is a crime but the police did nothing about it.

This leads me to a fascinating term by conservative commentator, Michael Gerson, known as the 'racism of low expectations'. This form of racism is found purely in the cultural Marxist left.  It is the idea that certain groups need to be held to a lower moral standard, which is pure racism.  In the Rushdie case, it was the muslim community or to the precise, the muslim anti-Rushdie protesters.  By holding them to a lower standard, it implies that society in general gives in to their demands, no matter how regressive or reprehensible they are.  Further, it makes those communities act on it, for example, muslim leaders have warned that if the UK government did not change parts of its foreign or domestic policy then there would be 'reprisals' or 'repercussions'.  We also saw this after the Ferguson shooting whereby black community leaders warned the police there would be more riots unless the police reformed its 'racist' actions.

The left's reality problem 3

The root cause of the refugee rape and sex attack crisis that is happening across Europe is that refugees come from societies where women are held in very low esteem.  In fact if you not a muslim male in a muslim country your life chances are seriously diminished.  It is very well known that a woman's testimony is worth a quarter of that of a muslim male and a non-muslim's testimony is worth half that of muslim.

The left either ignores this fact or plays the whatabouttery card.  This is where for example, equivalent crimes by white males are brought up to show that sex crimes come from all communities.  For example during the Rotherham scandal, the Cornwall paedophile scandal was brought up where the culprits were white English males.  Or more recently the issue of the sex assaults that take place during Oktoberfest was mentioned to counter the events in Cologne.  This idea that crime comes from all communities is true but what the ignores is the comparative scale of the problem between the different communities.  For instance, in the UK, muslims only make up 3-5% of the population but statistics show they make up 30% of child sex cases.  In Germany right now, shops selling pepper sprays are seeing record demand from women and here the cause quite clearly due to the refugee policies.

The left's reality problem 2

Following on from my previous post, the left's reality problem stems from a fear of criticizing or judging non-western cultures especially Islamic culture due to be judged as racist.  Therefore this racist label has been a gag on discussing issues such as Sharia law in the west and also immigration. This has been true in the recent mass rapes that happened in Germany during the new year's eve celebrations.  At first newspapers such as the Guardian were reluctant to report it and when it was making the news in all media, the Guardian's columnists started blaming women, the media and possible racism against migrants rather than the terrible sex attacks.  Instead the Guardian ran the story about West Indian cricketer Chris Gayle chatting up a female reporter and citing that as the worst excess in sexism. Worse was the comparison of the Cologne rapes with stories about how the odd woman is groped at the Oktoberfest and on a Saturday night out.  This was leftwing whattaboutery at its finest, somehow we cannot complain about migrant rapists when European males also commit rapes.

This is a continuation of this left wing meme, basically sexism is bad if it is only committed by white males, if it is committed by non-whites it is excused and always the worst of white male behaviour is mentioned as a mitigation of migrant behaviour.

I remember before the Rotherham rape scandal, the English Defence league talked about muslim rape gangs and leftists mocked this by calling the gangs, muslamic ray guns to ridicule some right winger's speech impediment.  This is not only mocking the EDL but also the victims of these attacks in Rotherham.

The left's reality problem

During the migrant crisis the media has been drumming the need for Western nations to take in more and more refugees.  We have seen various harrowing images of drowned children, women and children in liferafts who have escaped several warzones etc, but strange that according to even the most reliable figures most of the refugees are fit young men.

The reasons for accepting the refugees are summed up below

• The west's colonial history.

Somehow modern day Europeans have to pay back the excesses of their forbears.  This is part of the post-colonial guilt trip that I read about.

• The west is responsible for these wars

To a limited extent yes, US and Uk have been heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for example.  However, a large percentage of the refugees head for places like Germany and Sweden, which have had little involvement in recent wars due to constitution (Germany) and political neutrality (Sweden).  The main source comes from Syria and that conflict started when Syrians started protesting against Assad, the west only got involved when IS came along.

• The west has all the world's resources

This is an old canard, its true that large amounts of resources flow to the west, but this is all to do with trade, it is all paid for.  In fact in recent years, the world's resources have been flowing towards China.

• Refugees enrich us with their culture and even add to the economy

Whether foreign cultures can enrich the west is a hotly debated point.  I don't see Chinese, Iranian or whatever non-Western society suddenly deciding it needs cultural enrichment.  As I will point out later it is this cultural difference that leads to problems.

So there you have the left's arguments and I will put the counter point in my next post.

The Left's EU problem

Since my move from being pro-EU to being anti-EU, the questions and contradictions that dog the left still remain.  The EU, along with the EC and EEC before that, is essentially about trade, that is the free flow of goods, capital and people. Therefore at its inception the left was hostile to the concept of a trade bloc. Indeed, during the original EEC membership referendum the late Margaret Thatcher campaigned for a yes to enter vote and the late Tony Benn campaigned for no to stay out vote.  This changed slowly in the 80s and 90s as the EC and later EU moved more to the left with laws to protect worker's rights, thereby circumventing the sovernignty of its member states. But in the 2000's a new factor entered the mix - immigration.  The addition of the former Eastern bloc countries and the Blair government's policy of allowing citizen's from these new members to enter the UK to work and live turned the whole debate on its head. So instead of the EU being a businessman's club to help them earn more profits, the paradigm was about cultural diversity, enrichment and the benefits of immigration. Now the axiom was that if you were against the EU then you were racist, in the same way that being against mass immigration was racist.

We can see this in the way UKIP are demonized during the 2015 general election, and the Green's party rather confused policy of campaigning to stay in the EU during the referendum but cutting down on the amount of trade between the UK and EU.  Strange that Greens do not mention cutting done the free movement of labour, only the free movement of goods and capital.

So therefore now we are in a situation where the British left are essentially campaigning to stay in a businessman's club , because it does not want to be seen as being pro-nation state, pro-sovereignty and against immigration.  This all ties in with the fact that since the fall of the USSR, the left has been pushing a cultural marxist of Frankfurt school agenda rather than an economic one.  In that anything that undermines British or western culture is good as the western or British culture is essentially racist, imperialist and made no positive contributions in the the left's view of the world.

Murderer or terrorist

As a result of the recent migrant crisis there has been a spate of violent attacks on migrants in numerous European countries and sadly some have resulted in deaths.  Elsewhere a number of Israeli Jews have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists through stabbings, rocks and car collisions.  To me all these deaths are deplorable.  The sad thing is that people on social media try to make political capital out of these tragic events.  One of these is - why are murders by muslims considered terrorism and why are murders by non-muslims considered murders and not terrorism? These memes appear usually on the politcal left and in muslim written articles.

To me it is the very simple.  When a muslim commits an atrocity, whether 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Charlie Hebdo, the left media always make excuses for the attack, blaming Western foreign policy, occupation of muslim land, support for zionism and in the case of Charlie Hebdo, insulting Islam.  There is very little thought for the victim and there is always a motivating factor and if that factor wasn't there then there would be no muslim outrages.  Also in more insidious cases some muslims and their far left fluffers claim that these outrages are part of greater conspiracy to take away our freedoms, stoke up 'islamophobia' and demonize the muslim population. Israeli is usually mentioned in the same breath as these conspiracies.

In contrasts, such questions are not asked when Brevik killed the teenagers in Utoya, or when a neo-fascist hacked two school workers to death in Sweden, including a muslim.  Absent is the question of why Brevik and other neo-fascists carried these attacks and what motivated them.  They are simply seen as evil acts by evil men.  Whilst it may be interesting to discuss why these acts were carried out, they are sure to raise very uncomfortable questions for the left.

So it is not the mass media that makes the distinction it is the left and muslim commentators that make this distinction.

Rebuttal of a rebuttal 2

In a previous post I made some replies to a ridiculous article about the refugee crisis.  Now someone has replied to my comment with a reply that is even worse than the original article and here is my reply to this reply

Hi Rachel
When I first read your reply my first thought was that it was a brilliant satire from the right of the political spectrum, I was corrected when I clicked on your facebook profile. Then I realized you were being serious. 

Sorry to say this but your response is even more deluded than the original article. 

" There is evidence already of sexual assaults of women who try to make this journey. Also women in Germany are asked to cover up in order not to provoke these male refugees into commiting rape."

Links? Proof?"

As for evidence of German women being told to cover up, then check out this link (yes I know its the Mail and its former owner supported Stalin, erm Hitler during the 30s)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Germany-state-SIEGE-Merkel...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Rape-child-abuse-rife...

The article above already alleges that women refugees or migrants are being raped right now in these refugee centres. Even women refugee activtists from NoBorders have been gang raped and told by NoBorders not to report this as it will damage their campaign.

http://www.breitbart.com/.../no-borders-activist-gang.../

These stories makes your comments below sound like complete nonsense

"Respecting boundaries? In most Asian cultures, it's completely taboo, disgraceful, dishonourable, unclean, for a man to touch a woman he is not related to by blood or marriage. I'd take them over a gang of navvies on any building site in Europe.

The refugee women are at risk from criminal human trafficking gangs, not their fellow refugees. Bear in mind thatmany in Asia regard the West as licentious and sexually promiscuous - not a safe place to send one's sheltered, unprotected, often uneducated, womenfolk to alone."

It sounds like you are the kind of person to believe that Islam is religion of peace, because a muslim told you so.

In another case a refugee activists was mugged by migrants in Germany, mugged by the very people he was helping and he wanted more of these people to come to his country.

http://www.breitbart.com/.../makes-sad-says-open-borders.../

If it is not safe for men to stay in Syria, why are Kurdish women signing up to the Kurdish militia, the YPG. In fact I have read articles that since the Syrian civil war started, women have joined the fighting on all different sides. Lastly why are muslims from Western countries going to Syria to fight for ISIS, sometimes taking their entire families along with them?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-are-so-many-young-british...

Rebuttal of a rebuttal

I came across this article which tries to answer why the 'refugees' heading in Europe's direction are mostly men. What an absolutely terrible article, even from a left wing point of view, and I say this as a former leftwing Marxist,

• 'Women and children are often left in the refugee camps in neighboring countries while the men decide to leave the camps in order to take the risky and often deadly trip to Europe by boat. According to statistics, the split between men and women in refugee camps is almost fifty/fifty.'

In other words, the men, like the women and children, have already been granted refugee status in neighbouring countries. Whether neighbouring countries is good enough for them is another matter.  They should stay with their women, rather than come to Europe.  This means that there is a gender imbalance of those 'refugees' who come to Europe and these are men who come from a culture where women are seen as inferior.  There is evidence already of sexual assaults of women who try to make this journey.  Also women in Germany are asked to cover up in order not to provoke these male refugees into commiting rape.  In that case, why let these males in in the first place?

• 'Another reason is that a lot of women and children die on their way to Europe.'

Why can't these men do more to protect women on these voyages?

• 'Families that travel together in a big group have a harder time with the logistics, simply because it’s hard to look after multiple people. Often the groups get stuck in countries on the way, don’t have enough energy for everyone to continue.'

This completely destroys the argument about people fleeing war and persecution. If men are fleeing war and persecution, when why should women and children be forced to stay and continue facing this war and persecution, regardless of whether they have the 'energy' or not.

• 'don’t have enough energy for everyone to continue or decide to stay in the first place where they feel safe'.

 The authour already mentioned that the women and children have found refuge in neighbouring countries.  So why aren't neighbouring countries good enough for the men?

• 'Last but not least: No one would send their daughter to do this trip by herself. No one. The risks for a girl travelling by herself on a dangerous route such as from Syria to Europe, are too high. Along the coastline, criminal gangs are reportedly charging Syrian families tens of thousands of dollars to transport them to Greece. According to the UN, women and children are at an extremely high risk of sexual abuse, violence and exploitation on the route from a war zone to a safe zone. Much more so than men. Sending your young daughter instead of son is basically guaranteeing exploitation and abuse. No sane parent would do that.'

If women and children fleeing war are at risk of sexual abuse, what about women and children in Europe who are now at greater risk of sexual abuse due to the arrival of men who do not respect women's boundaries?

A complete nonsense of an article.

Corbyn's shadow cabinet

Now that Jeremy Corbyn has named is shadow cabinet, there were very few surprises. Apart from leadership rival Andy Burnham, every one is on the hard left.  There are a new faces (Lisa Nandy) but then there are the old dinosaurs in Diane "whities divide and rule" Abbott and IRA fan John McDonnel as shadow chancellor.  I cannot see how this lot will help Labour win back to those swing voters in the marginals who deserted to the Tories in the last election.  Corbyn is turning a party that should be trying to win elections into a six form Sociology debating class. Bit sad as I think the Tories need a strong opposition to hold them to account. Apart from Cameron and the Tories, the big winner from all this is UKIP, who I think will challenge Labour very hard in its heartland.